- From: David W. Morris <dwm@shell.portal.com>
- Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 23:06:14 -0800 (PST)
- To: hallam@w3.org
- Cc: Lou Montulli <montulli@mozilla.com>, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com, hallam@w3.org
Well, my client's staff and I have spend something between 40 and 200 person hours tracking down and resolving a problem in our server like product caused by these two bytes which we didn't realize existed. If only I'd been current on my e'mail .... >-:). The symptom was that our code running on Win/95's winsock would leave the two bytes hanging and close the connection. Since the winsock stack would know it had two unreceived bytes, it would apparently do a RST instead of FIN. This resulted in NETSCAPE complaining about the connection being reset by the peer. Interstingly, if we inserted a delay before the close, then apparently NETSCAPE would close first and never complain. I have no idea what stimulated the thought that it might be outstanding receive data which caused the problem we were seeing but we tried alomst everything else first. In summary, I'm not sure it would be practical to change the content length or remove the characters but their existance surely *MUST* be documented, and if perchance we have to make more edits on 1.0 we should add a comment there as well. My inclination is to document the content as being followed by optional trailers whose end is indicated by a NULL line. Current programs and CGIS keep working and new applications which might expect such trailers can work as well. perl code *CAN* be written to not require trailing CR/LF but it is more complex so new applications could be made to work. Dave Morris On Mon, 4 Mar 1996 hallam@w3.org wrote: > > >I think it would break binary files in weird ways. For instance > >transfering an executable would cause it to gain 2 bytes on > >every transfer. It would certainly break anything that contained > >a checksum. > > I wasn't suggesting this. I was suggesting that we change the > spec for www-url-encoded-form. I would not want to change the way > binary files are transmitted! > > The problem is that netscape is saying it is sending a content length of 36 > bytes but actually transfering 38. This is a bug IMHO. Whenever a length of 36 > is stated it should mean 36. > > If Netscape is sending a bogus CRLF after binary files then I would expect > problems to arise in any case. > > Phill >
Received on Tuesday, 12 March 1996 23:09:18 UTC